On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:31:42PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
If anyone's an expert on shell portability, open to any suggestions
/ major concerns...but I know we have a conservative, and opinionated,
audience here.
(Not an expert, just an enthusiast...!)
This is great, thanks very much for d
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 03:11:45AM +1200, Tom Ryder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:31:42PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> > If anyone's an expert on shell portability, open to any suggestions /
> > major concerns...but I know we have a conservative, and opinionated,
> > audience here.
>
> (Not
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:31:42PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
Working on shellcheck first.
I personally like doing them as separate steps, but let me know what you
think:
Thanks for getting right on this, Will!
Separate steps are fine with me too.
If anyone's an expert on shell portability,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:23:09PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
Maybe a separate step called "check" for one or more of these?
Yeah, you're welcome to have a target for each individual check, but it
would be nice to have a single one to invoke.
Do all steps run with the same executor, or can
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:55:09PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
Also asked Alexander to take a look at
https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/-/merge_requests/104
I'll wait for his feedback there. If he doesn't have any problems I'll
merge it.
This doesn't enable it in either the Makefile or in CI,
I'd like to extend a public welcome to Remco Rijnders, who has decided
to join the development team (with some encouragement on my part :-)).
Thank you Remco, I'm very happy to start growing the development team
again, and look forward to working with you.
--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint
